Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Drug legalization

jkerr3
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 12:38:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What do you guys think about drugs being legalized for recreational use, it could be all drugs or just marijuana. Are you for it or against it and why?
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 12:55:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I believe that drugs should be legalized because an individual should have the freedom to choose what they do with their own body.

In a pragmatic sense though, I think that we should push for the legalization of marijuana, both medical and recreational use. Advocating for anything else (say, legalizing heroin) will just be a waste of political capital, since the public is too strongly opposed to this measure at this point in time.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Kanti
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 2:09:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I partially understand the reasoning behind the Controlled Substance Act that essentially made all drugs a federal offense therefore state and local governments had to enforce them. The years prior to the act being passed there were sharp increases in drug addictions and drug related deaths. For once you can say the government was catching on to a trend that would persist until the 90's where crack cocaine and heroin addiction reach a peak. Typical of the government they ended up creating an environment that degenerated socioeconomic standards in the areas that abuse was the worse. When you're arresting a high percentage of a communities fathers and mothers you have to consider the effect it has on their children. The kids are without a fundamental piece for their developmental and you're taking away 1/2 of the families earning potential. You're creating poor kids without a positive influence in the home. The absence of money and influence creates a vacuum, and that void is easily filled by neighborhood distributors. They promise money and the power, and those things are appealing to poor kids without parents.

So we need to address sentencing. Mandatory minimums are an absolute joke and they take the power out of the hands of a judge that is familiar with the offender and their place in the community. Instead of throwing a first time offender into jail we could spend half that and mandate they go to a pseudo jail-rehab. You absolutely have to address the root of the problem which is addiction and poor job markets. Start going after the distributors who are also at the core of most of the cities crime. In a way this is a compromise between the people that want to decriminalize all drugs and the side that feels you have to be proactive against the very real threat drug addiction causes to the population.

On an idealistic level I think all drugs should be decriminalized. Most drugs addicts are actually self-medicating too so it's not like that don't need the drug. They just don't need heroin for a herniated disk. What I have an issue with is distributors. The consumer doesn't know how potent the drug is. They either overdose or become so physically dependent that they resort to criminally activity to feed their addiction. There are no warning labels on illegal drugs. There are no descriptions on how to use them. Distributors are intelligent to the extent that they know how to make their business more profitable. They intentionally try to get high-risk people addicted because then it makes the dealer indispensable.

The government has created this market though. Anytime you want to create an unregulated market all you have to do is make distribution of the product illegal then you have a latent market underneath federal regulation that's only subject to law enforcement, and law enforcement is absolutely the most destructive means of administering the law.

In short I support decriminalization but it has to be carefully crafted. The states have the right idea. They're raising the question of federalism which is ultimately the issue here. I believe the states have a better understanding of what works for their population. Colorado and California realize the wide-ranging benefits of marijuana and they've acted in the best interest of their people despite the will of the federal government. I live in one of the most conservative states in the union and we almost passed a marijuana semi-legalization bill last cycle. Pennsylvania has done away with mandatory minimums, and it's allowed them to reinvest in rehab and job training for first time offenders. It's cheaper and the outcome has been exponentially more positive.
jkerr3
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 2:33:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 2:09:33 PM, Kanti wrote:
I partially understand the reasoning behind the Controlled Substance Act that essentially made all drugs a federal offense therefore state and local governments had to enforce them. The years prior to the act being passed there were sharp increases in drug addictions and drug related deaths. For once you can say the government was catching on to a trend that would persist until the 90's where crack cocaine and heroin addiction reach a peak. Typical of the government they ended up creating an environment that degenerated socioeconomic standards in the areas that abuse was the worse. When you're arresting a high percentage of a communities fathers and mothers you have to consider the effect it has on their children. The kids are without a fundamental piece for their developmental and you're taking away 1/2 of the families earning potential. You're creating poor kids without a positive influence in the home. The absence of money and influence creates a vacuum, and that void is easily filled by neighborhood distributors. They promise money and the power, and those things are appealing to poor kids without parents.

So we need to address sentencing. Mandatory minimums are an absolute joke and they take the power out of the hands of a judge that is familiar with the offender and their place in the community. Instead of throwing a first time offender into jail we could spend half that and mandate they go to a pseudo jail-rehab. You absolutely have to address the root of the problem which is addiction and poor job markets. Start going after the distributors who are also at the core of most of the cities crime. In a way this is a compromise between the people that want to decriminalize all drugs and the side that feels you have to be proactive against the very real threat drug addiction causes to the population.

On an idealistic level I think all drugs should be decriminalized. Most drugs addicts are actually self-medicating too so it's not like that don't need the drug. They just don't need heroin for a herniated disk. What I have an issue with is distributors. The consumer doesn't know how potent the drug is. They either overdose or become so physically dependent that they resort to criminally activity to feed their addiction. There are no warning labels on illegal drugs. There are no descriptions on how to use them. Distributors are intelligent to the extent that they know how to make their business more profitable. They intentionally try to get high-risk people addicted because then it makes the dealer indispensable.

The government has created this market though. Anytime you want to create an unregulated market all you have to do is make distribution of the product illegal then you have a latent market underneath federal regulation that's only subject to law enforcement, and law enforcement is absolutely the most destructive means of administering the law.

In short I support decriminalization but it has to be carefully crafted. The states have the right idea. They're raising the question of federalism which is ultimately the issue here. I believe the states have a better understanding of what works for their population. Colorado and California realize the wide-ranging benefits of marijuana and they've acted in the best interest of their people despite the will of the federal government. I live in one of the most conservative states in the union and we almost passed a marijuana semi-legalization bill last cycle. Pennsylvania has done away with mandatory minimums, and it's allowed them to reinvest in rehab and job training for first time offenders. It's cheaper and the outcome has been exponentially more positive.

I'm pretty sure decriminalization is just saying you wont arrest people for personal drug use however the police will still arrest people for drug distribution/sale. I don't think that will solve anything. Like you said a drug dealer doesn't have to make the potency of the drug known nor are the going to provide a suggested dosage amount and in many cases they will cut the drug with even more harmful chemicals in an attempt to make more money. If drugs where legalized and distributed similar to alcohol then virtually all of those issues would be avoided not to mention it would eliminate much of the drug murders that are the cause of most homicides in most major cities. If you took all the money the government is currently spending on the drug war "tens of billion maybe even hundreds of billions" per year and spent it on drug treatment, education, and had the police focus on solving actual crimes like theft, rape, assault ect... Overall I think people would be better off.
Kanti
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 7:25:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 2:33:02 PM, jkerr3 wrote:

I'm pretty sure decriminalization is just saying you wont arrest people for personal drug use however the police will still arrest people for drug distribution/sale. I don't think that will solve anything. Like you said a drug dealer doesn't have to make the potency of the drug known nor are the going to provide a suggested dosage amount and in many cases they will cut the drug with even more harmful chemicals in an attempt to make more money. If drugs where legalized and distributed similar to alcohol then virtually all of those issues would be avoided not to mention it would eliminate much of the drug murders that are the cause of most homicides in most major cities. If you took all the money the government is currently spending on the drug war "tens of billion maybe even hundreds of billions" per year and spent it on drug treatment, education, and had the police focus on solving actual crimes like theft, rape, assault ect... Overall I think people would be better off.

I was not setting decriminalization as the end result. It's more of a baseline. It addresses the disparity drug enforcement creates in minority and youth populations. It's the most achievable step towards legalization. The issue here is there will never be a Congress that will decriminalize drugs. It's just never going to happens. There's too much misinformation and to put it bluntly most people are not smart enough to comprehend how drugs laws actually make the problem worse. So you have to start by mitigating the harm drug laws have on the population which is decriminalization.

There's also some major questions that need to be asked. Crack cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine are incredibly addictive. There are some major moral and ethical issues that arise when considering legalizing those drugs. I've seen the way methamphetamine can ruin an entire family. People waste 20 years of their life. Their kids grow up without a competent parent, the parents usually separate, and everyone around them can't trust addict. It's like seeing someone tear off a sliver of their skin each month for 20 years until finally they're just a scabbed over ghost of who they used to be. It's a very sad ordeal. If you have a conscience you cannot willingly allow a person to destroy themselves. Meth, coke, and heroin are just too addictive to not be policed.
jkerr3
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 11:41:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 7:25:09 PM, Kanti wrote:
At 4/7/2014 2:33:02 PM, jkerr3 wrote:

I'm pretty sure decriminalization is just saying you wont arrest people for personal drug use however the police will still arrest people for drug distribution/sale. I don't think that will solve anything. Like you said a drug dealer doesn't have to make the potency of the drug known nor are the going to provide a suggested dosage amount and in many cases they will cut the drug with even more harmful chemicals in an attempt to make more money. If drugs where legalized and distributed similar to alcohol then virtually all of those issues would be avoided not to mention it would eliminate much of the drug murders that are the cause of most homicides in most major cities. If you took all the money the government is currently spending on the drug war "tens of billion maybe even hundreds of billions" per year and spent it on drug treatment, education, and had the police focus on solving actual crimes like theft, rape, assault ect... Overall I think people would be better off.

I was not setting decriminalization as the end result. It's more of a baseline. It addresses the disparity drug enforcement creates in minority and youth populations. It's the most achievable step towards legalization. The issue here is there will never be a Congress that will decriminalize drugs. It's just never going to happens. There's too much misinformation and to put it bluntly most people are not smart enough to comprehend how drugs laws actually make the problem worse. So you have to start by mitigating the harm drug laws have on the population which is decriminalization.

There's also some major questions that need to be asked. Crack cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine are incredibly addictive. There are some major moral and ethical issues that arise when considering legalizing those drugs. I've seen the way methamphetamine can ruin an entire family. People waste 20 years of their life. Their kids grow up without a competent parent, the parents usually separate, and everyone around them can't trust addict. It's like seeing someone tear off a sliver of their skin each month for 20 years until finally they're just a scabbed over ghost of who they used to be. It's a very sad ordeal. If you have a conscience you cannot willingly allow a person to destroy themselves. Meth, coke, and heroin are just too addictive to not be policed.

http://www.thefix.com...

There's actually a decent amount of evidence to suggest that alcohol is more addictive than powder cocaine. If you look at the link I posted alcohol is considered the 6th most dangerous drug while cocaine is number 7. Plenty of people have used cocaine/meth a few times and didn't get addicted, however when it comes to crack and herion I agree slightly more that just 1 time can lead to addiction. However I don't think that's a reason for it to be outlawed, plenty of things are addictive, sex, gambling, porn, ect... The question is what degree of control should I have over my life? If I am an upstanding citizen who goes to work everyday, pays my taxes/bills, supports my kids/spouse, and am respected in the community and I like to do a little coke every now and then why is that morally wrong? why should I be criminally punished for it? It makes no sense.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 3:29:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 2:09:33 PM, Kanti wrote:
I partially understand the reasoning behind the Controlled Substance Act that essentially made all drugs a federal offense therefore state and local governments had to enforce them.

I think that's an unfunded mandate... just saying.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Kanti
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 7:34:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 11:41:51 AM, jkerr3 wrote:

http://www.thefix.com...

There's actually a decent amount of evidence to suggest that alcohol is more addictive than powder cocaine. If you look at the link I posted alcohol is considered the 6th most dangerous drug while cocaine is number 7. Plenty of people have used cocaine/meth a few times and didn't get addicted, however when it comes to crack and herion I agree slightly more that just 1 time can lead to addiction. However I don't think that's a reason for it to be outlawed, plenty of things are addictive, sex, gambling, porn, ect... The question is what degree of control should I have over my life? If I am an upstanding citizen who goes to work everyday, pays my taxes/bills, supports my kids/spouse, and am respected in the community and I like to do a little coke every now and then why is that morally wrong? why should I be criminally punished for it? It makes no sense.

To begin with and I'm not trying to discredit the article you posted but I couldn't find the metrics they used to measure addiction. They listed the number of people that were addicted to each substance and I would take issue with using that as a measure of addictive quality because the amount of people that use cigs and alcohol are going to be astronomically higher because those drugs are legal for purchase. That's not an indicator of the tendency to form an addiction IMO because you're sample size is 1000x larger then almost any other substance. If they're using the number of habitual users over the amount of people that have used the substance I would not have a problem with it being used as a metric, but then you also have to consider societies general acceptance of nicotine and alcohol addiction.

Society not only discourages use of cocaine, heroin, and meth on a social level it enforces prohibition with disproportionate punishment yet that doesn't stop people from becoming addicted to them despite the difficulty of attaining them and the punishment for getting caught. Think about this. 1/4 people who try heroin become addicted. Rats will choose cocaine over food until death. The issue I have with these drugs is they mock neurotransmitters. Habitual use drastically alters the brains natural functions. In young adults this process can alter their brain functions for the rest of their life and lead to many emotional disorders. That's the issue here. As a society I feel it's a moral imperative to discourage the use of these drugs in however you can. An age limit wouldn't work because it hasn't stopped kids from getting alcohol. And if you think underage alcohol use is a problem imagine the problem you have on your hand when young adults are having people walk into drug stores and buy them heroin then they mix it with the alcohol and their respiratory system shuts downs. I'm not being paranoid either because I've seen it happen. High school and college students have poor self control and the last thing you need is to create a legal pipeline.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 10:44:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 7:34:22 PM, Kanti wrote:
At 4/8/2014 11:41:51 AM, jkerr3 wrote:

http://www.thefix.com...

There's actually a decent amount of evidence to suggest that alcohol is more addictive than powder cocaine. If you look at the link I posted alcohol is considered the 6th most dangerous drug while cocaine is number 7. Plenty of people have used cocaine/meth a few times and didn't get addicted, however when it comes to crack and herion I agree slightly more that just 1 time can lead to addiction. However I don't think that's a reason for it to be outlawed, plenty of things are addictive, sex, gambling, porn, ect... The question is what degree of control should I have over my life? If I am an upstanding citizen who goes to work everyday, pays my taxes/bills, supports my kids/spouse, and am respected in the community and I like to do a little coke every now and then why is that morally wrong? why should I be criminally punished for it? It makes no sense.

To begin with and I'm not trying to discredit the article you posted but I couldn't find the metrics they used to measure addiction. They listed the number of people that were addicted to each substance and I would take issue with using that as a measure of addictive quality because the amount of people that use cigs and alcohol are going to be astronomically higher because those drugs are legal for purchase. That's not an indicator of the tendency to form an addiction IMO because you're sample size is 1000x larger then almost any other substance. If they're using the number of habitual users over the amount of people that have used the substance I would not have a problem with it being used as a metric, but then you also have to consider societies general acceptance of nicotine and alcohol addiction.

Society not only discourages use of cocaine, heroin, and meth on a social level it enforces prohibition with disproportionate punishment yet that doesn't stop people from becoming addicted to them despite the difficulty of attaining them and the punishment for getting caught. Think about this. 1/4 people who try heroin become addicted. Rats will choose cocaine over food until death. The issue I have with these drugs is they mock neurotransmitters. Habitual use drastically alters the brains natural functions. In young adults this process can alter their brain functions for the rest of their life and lead to many emotional disorders. That's the issue here. As a society I feel it's a moral imperative to discourage the use of these drugs in however you can. An age limit wouldn't work because it hasn't stopped kids from getting alcohol. And if you think underage alcohol use is a problem imagine the problem you have on your hand when young adults are having people walk into drug stores and buy them heroin then they mix it with the alcohol and their respiratory system shuts downs. I'm not being paranoid either because I've seen it happen. High school and college students have poor self control and the last thing you need is to create a legal pipeline.

I would like to call your attention to a few facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

'Rat Park' was a study conducted by Bruce Alexander. Basically, it turns out that if you lock rats in tiny cages all day long, the habitual use of drugs becomes pretty damn appealing. In 'Rat Park', however, the rats did not show addiction to morphine.

"1/4 people who try heroin become addicted. Rats will choose cocaine over food until death" - I don't know where you're getting these statistics from, but I seeing as I am fairly sure that both codeine and heroin are converted to morphine by the body, which is what causes the effects, your figure about heroin surely is not related to the effects of 'heroin' itself but to the conditions of the person who will try heroin. The rat thing is complete nonsense if true, serving merely to illustrate Rat Park's veracity. I know a few people who take cocaine and it really doesn't seem to impact their lives very much at all other than when they're on it.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 10:44:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 7:34:22 PM, Kanti wrote:
At 4/8/2014 11:41:51 AM, jkerr3 wrote:

http://www.thefix.com...

There's actually a decent amount of evidence to suggest that alcohol is more addictive than powder cocaine. If you look at the link I posted alcohol is considered the 6th most dangerous drug while cocaine is number 7. Plenty of people have used cocaine/meth a few times and didn't get addicted, however when it comes to crack and herion I agree slightly more that just 1 time can lead to addiction. However I don't think that's a reason for it to be outlawed, plenty of things are addictive, sex, gambling, porn, ect... The question is what degree of control should I have over my life? If I am an upstanding citizen who goes to work everyday, pays my taxes/bills, supports my kids/spouse, and am respected in the community and I like to do a little coke every now and then why is that morally wrong? why should I be criminally punished for it? It makes no sense.

To begin with and I'm not trying to discredit the article you posted but I couldn't find the metrics they used to measure addiction. They listed the number of people that were addicted to each substance and I would take issue with using that as a measure of addictive quality because the amount of people that use cigs and alcohol are going to be astronomically higher because those drugs are legal for purchase. That's not an indicator of the tendency to form an addiction IMO because you're sample size is 1000x larger then almost any other substance. If they're using the number of habitual users over the amount of people that have used the substance I would not have a problem with it being used as a metric, but then you also have to consider societies general acceptance of nicotine and alcohol addiction.

Society not only discourages use of cocaine, heroin, and meth on a social level it enforces prohibition with disproportionate punishment yet that doesn't stop people from becoming addicted to them despite the difficulty of attaining them and the punishment for getting caught. Think about this. 1/4 people who try heroin become addicted. Rats will choose cocaine over food until death. The issue I have with these drugs is they mock neurotransmitters. Habitual use drastically alters the brains natural functions. In young adults this process can alter their brain functions for the rest of their life and lead to many emotional disorders. That's the issue here. As a society I feel it's a moral imperative to discourage the use of these drugs in however you can. An age limit wouldn't work because it hasn't stopped kids from getting alcohol. And if you think underage alcohol use is a problem imagine the problem you have on your hand when young adults are having people walk into drug stores and buy them heroin then they mix it with the alcohol and their respiratory system shuts downs. I'm not being paranoid either because I've seen it happen. High school and college students have poor self control and the last thing you need is to create a legal pipeline.

I would like to call your attention to a few facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

'Rat Park' was a study conducted by Bruce Alexander. Basically, it turns out that if you lock rats in tiny cages all day long, the habitual use of drugs becomes pretty damn appealing. In 'Rat Park', however, the rats did not show addiction to morphine.

"1/4 people who try heroin become addicted. Rats will choose cocaine over food until death" - I don't know where you're getting these statistics from, but I seeing as I am fairly sure that both codeine and heroin are converted to morphine by the body, which is what causes the effects, your figure about heroin surely is not related to the effects of 'heroin' itself but to the conditions of the person who will try heroin. The rat thing is complete nonsense if true, serving merely to illustrate Rat Park's veracity. I know a few people who take cocaine and it really doesn't seem to impact their lives very much at all other than when they're on it.
Kanti
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 11:14:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 10:44:46 PM, Wocambs wrote:
I would like to call your attention to a few facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

'Rat Park' was a study conducted by Bruce Alexander. Basically, it turns out that if you lock rats in tiny cages all day long, the habitual use of drugs becomes pretty damn appealing. In 'Rat Park', however, the rats did not show addiction to morphine.

"1/4 people who try heroin become addicted. Rats will choose cocaine over food until death" - I don't know where you're getting these statistics from, but I seeing as I am fairly sure that both codeine and heroin are converted to morphine by the body, which is what causes the effects, your figure about heroin surely is not related to the effects of 'heroin' itself but to the conditions of the person who will try heroin. The rat thing is complete nonsense if true, serving merely to illustrate Rat Park's veracity. I know a few people who take cocaine and it really doesn't seem to impact their lives very much at all other than when they're on it.

To begin with the amount of people that are addicted to heroin is not mutually exclusive to heroin. Using heroin does not mean addiction in itself, but the users that have developed a dependence on "lesser" opioids are highly likely to become life-time addicts when they try the morphine-based painkillers which mean heroin. Which is the discouraging factor for me. It's like giving a person with a death wish a gun. I know that sounds dramatic but I've witnessed it with my eyes and when a person goes down that road the probability of intravenous use is almost an inevitability. The 1/4 came from the NIH so it's a credible source.

Don't interpret my comments as discouraging to drug use. I think we could handle many of the problems of drug addiction by making them legal. It creates a market that can actually be regulated. It would greatly encourage the healthy and intelligent use of drugs as well as driving down the prices. The financial aspect of drug use is probably the most detrimental aspect of addiction next to the health concerns. I don't know about your friend but on the other end I've seen young girls give birth to 1 pound babies so it's not like the drugs is completely harmless.

The issue here is should people have a choice? And to my point how much of choice should people have? Ultimately the people are making the decisions on a state level, and that's the way it should be. I don't think the general population will ever legalize heroin, cocaine, and meth, but of course there are healthy and legal alternatives so once we deal with the burdensome drug sentencing laws will be closer to a pragmatic approach on drug regulation that works for everyone.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 11:24:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 12:38:09 PM, jkerr3 wrote:
What do you guys think about drugs being legalized for recreational use, it could be all drugs or just marijuana. Are you for it or against it and why?

My dark, Malthusian side is in favor of legalizing all drugs...
Tsar of DDO
Kanti
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 11:30:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 11:24:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/7/2014 12:38:09 PM, jkerr3 wrote:
What do you guys think about drugs being legalized for recreational use, it could be all drugs or just marijuana. Are you for it or against it and why?

My dark, Malthusian side is in favor of legalizing all drugs...

Come on, now. All geniuses do drugs.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 11:34:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 11:30:51 PM, Kanti wrote:
At 4/9/2014 11:24:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/7/2014 12:38:09 PM, jkerr3 wrote:
What do you guys think about drugs being legalized for recreational use, it could be all drugs or just marijuana. Are you for it or against it and why?

My dark, Malthusian side is in favor of legalizing all drugs...

Come on, now. All geniuses do drugs.

Y u on crack?
Tsar of DDO
Kanti
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 11:50:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 11:34:47 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/9/2014 11:30:51 PM, Kanti wrote:
At 4/9/2014 11:24:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/7/2014 12:38:09 PM, jkerr3 wrote:
What do you guys think about drugs being legalized for recreational use, it could be all drugs or just marijuana. Are you for it or against it and why?

My dark, Malthusian side is in favor of legalizing all drugs...

Come on, now. All geniuses do drugs.:
Y u on crack?

No, but Freud was a coke addict. Dock Ellis pitches a no hitter on acid. The Beatles, Pink Floyd, and Bob Dylan were better on the drugs. Try reading The Book Of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelations without feeling like a you're hallucinating.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 11:59:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 11:50:44 PM, Kanti wrote:
At 4/9/2014 11:34:47 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/9/2014 11:30:51 PM, Kanti wrote:
At 4/9/2014 11:24:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/7/2014 12:38:09 PM, jkerr3 wrote:
What do you guys think about drugs being legalized for recreational use, it could be all drugs or just marijuana. Are you for it or against it and why?

My dark, Malthusian side is in favor of legalizing all drugs...

Come on, now. All geniuses do drugs.:
Y u on crack?

No, but Freud was a coke addict.

He wasn't a genius either.

Dock Ellis pitches a no hitter on acid.

Not a genius.

The Beatles, Pink Floyd, and Bob Dylan were better on the drugs.

The Beatles were better on Acid, and Pink Floyd was better on any kind of drug. I never really was a Bob Dylan fan, but none of them were geniuses.

Try reading The Book Of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelations without feeling like a you're hallucinating.

No.
Tsar of DDO
Kanti
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 12:08:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 11:59:12 PM, YYW wrote:

No, but Freud was a coke addict.

He wasn't a genius either.

You don't think Freud has a genius level IQ? Jung was known to have experimented with psychedelics as well. I'm not even really being serious though. Maybe genius was the wrong word but creativity and drug use have a correlation.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 12:13:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 12:08:50 AM, Kanti wrote:
At 4/9/2014 11:59:12 PM, YYW wrote:

No, but Freud was a coke addict.

He wasn't a genius either.

You don't think Freud has a genius level IQ?

Nope.

Jung was known to have experimented with psychedelics as well.

Also not a genius, although Jung was far more interesting than Freud -even if Freud is more useful.

I'm not even really being serious though. Maybe genius was the wrong word but creativity and drug use have a correlation.

Genius might not have been the best choice... and some drugs can facilitate creativity.
Tsar of DDO
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:35:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 11:14:05 PM, Kanti wrote:
At 4/9/2014 10:44:46 PM, Wocambs wrote:
I would like to call your attention to a few facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

'Rat Park' was a study conducted by Bruce Alexander. Basically, it turns out that if you lock rats in tiny cages all day long, the habitual use of drugs becomes pretty damn appealing. In 'Rat Park', however, the rats did not show addiction to morphine.

"1/4 people who try heroin become addicted. Rats will choose cocaine over food until death" - I don't know where you're getting these statistics from, but I seeing as I am fairly sure that both codeine and heroin are converted to morphine by the body, which is what causes the effects, your figure about heroin surely is not related to the effects of 'heroin' itself but to the conditions of the person who will try heroin. The rat thing is complete nonsense if true, serving merely to illustrate Rat Park's veracity. I know a few people who take cocaine and it really doesn't seem to impact their lives very much at all other than when they're on it.

To begin with the amount of people that are addicted to heroin is not mutually exclusive to heroin. Using heroin does not mean addiction in itself, but the users that have developed a dependence on "lesser" opioids are highly likely to become life-time addicts when they try the morphine-based painkillers which mean heroin. Which is the discouraging factor for me. It's like giving a person with a death wish a gun. I know that sounds dramatic but I've witnessed it with my eyes and when a person goes down that road the probability of intravenous use is almost an inevitability. The 1/4 came from the NIH so it's a credible source.

Don't interpret my comments as discouraging to drug use. I think we could handle many of the problems of drug addiction by making them legal. It creates a market that can actually be regulated. It would greatly encourage the healthy and intelligent use of drugs as well as driving down the prices. The financial aspect of drug use is probably the most detrimental aspect of addiction next to the health concerns. I don't know about your friend but on the other end I've seen young girls give birth to 1 pound babies so it's not like the drugs is completely harmless.

The issue here is should people have a choice? And to my point how much of choice should people have? Ultimately the people are making the decisions on a state level, and that's the way it should be. I don't think the general population will ever legalize heroin, cocaine, and meth, but of course there are healthy and legal alternatives so once we deal with the burdensome drug sentencing laws will be closer to a pragmatic approach on drug regulation that works for everyone..

Hey, maybe heroin just feels that awesome. In fact I'm pretty sure it does. The argument you're making is that heroin literally robs someone of their free will, which is not correct.

Also, I think you'll find that the financial aspect far outweighs the health concerns - at least when you aren't pregnant, but that's obviously a separate issue since all kinds of things can cause birth defects, e.g. Vitamin A. To my knowledge, the main health problems encountered by a heroin user are those which are a result of the injection rather than the drug (excluding overdoses), whereas the cost of heroin drives people to crime. This seems far more important to me.

"The issue here is should people have a choice? And to my point how much of choice should people have?" - All the choice in the world.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:47:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 12:13:33 AM, YYW wrote:

What definition of 'genius' are we operating under? I think you'd have to be pretty damn stupid to go through life without ever altering your state of mind...
jkerr3
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 11:43:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 12:13:33 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/10/2014 12:08:50 AM, Kanti wrote:
At 4/9/2014 11:59:12 PM, YYW wrote:

No, but Freud was a coke addict.

He wasn't a genius either.

You don't think Freud has a genius level IQ?

Nope.

Jung was known to have experimented with psychedelics as well.

Also not a genius, although Jung was far more interesting than Freud -even if Freud is more useful.

I'm not even really being serious though. Maybe genius was the wrong word but creativity and drug use have a correlation.

Genius might not have been the best choice... and some drugs can facilitate creativity.

http://www.psychologytoday.com...

Interesting article about how people with higher IQ's are more likely to experiment with drugs.